"I think Tito is a great fighter and he's a tuff MOFO, but even he knows there is someone out there that can destroy him with ease. " LOL! Yeah: Randy Couture, Chuck Lidell, Wanderlei Silva, Quinton Jackson, maybe Vitor Belfort. . . and that's just in his weight class! I think the point that many miss in these debates is that MMA is not based on a certain bank of techniques, and it's not really possible to compare it to TMA's on the same terms. Apples and Oranges. MMA is a training philosophy, and nothing more. It is based SOLELY on the idea that the best way to train to grapple someone is to grapple someone, and the best way to train to hit someone is to hit someone. The best way to train to fight. . . is to fight! As one stands up in class against someone who is just as good as you or better, and one tries to win a bout against that training partner(and the favor is reurned) one learns just what they are capable of pulling off, and what is a pipe dream for them. To think that if I could not land a simple punch to the face I would be able to gouge out an eye(a much smaller target) is not realistic. But if I have trained that punch againt a resisting opponent I will have the reflexes and precision to put it on target. The whole ongoing debate on MMA vs. TMA is a false dichotomy. If you train traditional Okinawan Karate, or Shaolin Kung-Fu with the same *methodology* as MMA fighters use, you will learn exactly what you can accomplish in combat, and what you cannot. Conversely, if I trained MMA-type kickboxing and grappling without sparring or rolling around i would develop only minimal applicable skills. It's been said, but it bears repeating: "It's not the style: it's the sweat."
